Interview with Laura Jayes, Sky News Australia AM Agenda
LAURA JAYES, HOST: Joining me live now is the Communications Minister Michelle Rowland. Michelle, thanks so much for your time. What do you think about this seven-decade career and this big move in the media landscape today?
MICHELLE ROWLAND, MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS: Well, obviously it is quite extraordinary, but at the same time, I know that this is a process that would have been thought about, I think, for some time. I congratulate Mr Murdoch for his many years in the sector. Of course, he is a major global player not only in Australia but throughout the world, and also congratulate Mr Lachlan Murdoch on his elevation and wish them both all the best for the future.
JAYES: I’m sure that will be well received. Michelle, I got on you on because earlier this week we were talking about dating apps and the need for them to self-regulate. Now, you’ve given them a fair amount of time. What kind of things do you need to see from these dating apps?
ROWLAND: I think, firstly, understanding the fact, Laura, that dating apps and online dating services are actually now mainstream. They’re the most popular way for people to form new relationships in Australia. But at the same time it is deeply concerning that we have had research that shows some three in four people who are using these apps actually experience some form of technology-facilitated violence, and some of that can be quite extreme. All of it is, of course, unacceptable.
But when we brought the industry and experts, law enforcement agencies and others stakeholders together in January, it was actually the first time at an Australian level that this had been done. And it was important to understand the roles of the different players and precisely what those apps were doing to keep Australians safe.
In answer to your question, what we’re looking at, it’s a number of things. Firstly, what kinds of complaints-handling processes are in place and how those complaints are actually being implemented and responded to in practice, what are the safety features that are inherent in the design of these apps and online platforms, how easily accessible they are, how affordable they are, and what is the interface between those services and law enforcement agencies. One of the things we’ve found over a number of months engaging with these providers is that there is inconsistency across the different platforms and different apps.
We want to lift the standard overall for safety for Australian users. Those are some of the items we expect will be included. But also we have requested the eSafety Commissioner to be involved in the oversight but also in the formulation of this code. The expertise there will be vital, and what we want to see is that lift, but ultimately it’s about keeping Australian consumers safe.
JAYES: What about the misinformation bill? There’s a lot of concern around the architecture of this. Are you willing to make any changes here?
ROWLAND: One of the reasons why we issued an exposure draft in the first place, Laura, was to illicit views on this new area of law. It is an area in which some 70 per cent of Australians are concerned about the spread of misinformation and disinformation and the severe harms that can be caused by that. What we have been doing is engaging constructively with the number of people who’ve made very considered submissions. We are now engaging with those stakeholders to look at different drafting options, at ways in which this can be finalised.
Ultimately, I’ll say two things: firstly, the whole point of putting this out for exposure draft was to illicit views, and I’m very grateful for some of the very considered submissions that have come in and their willingness to be engaged in this process. But secondly, doing nothing is not an option. It is very clear from the submissions that have been received, the overwhelming number of submissions, that we can’t do nothing. Government has a role to play here, and, as I said from the outset when I announced this in January and came on your good show at that time –
JAYES: Thank you.
ROWLAND: – we do need to get the balance right, and that is why we are going forward in a mature and methodical manner. And, again, I thank the submitters for their comments and I thank them for their willingness to continue engaging to get these protections for Australian consumers.
JAYES: Yeah, it’s really difficult to strike that balance, isn’t it? Because we have learned, you know, with the RMIT experience, I think, that with fact checkers there is sometimes an inherent bias there that is not immediately obvious but certainly Meta recognise that, would you agree?
ROWLAND: Regulators around the world are grappling with these very problems. I will point out that it’s one that is – whilst we are dealing with it now – it’s one that is not new. In fact, as far back as 2019 when the ACCC conducted and released its Digital Platforms Inquiry, Rod Sims pointed and has since reiterated the very important need to do something about these platforms; these global, multinational platforms of extreme wealth, of market power which have more clout than most economies in the world. There cannot be a situation where governments do nothing.
But grappling with this now in an open and mature manner, as I announced in January and as I announced when we released the exposure draft in June – and, by the way, as the Morrison Government at the time announced itself prior to the last election that it would be taking legislative action in this area. This is not new. But what we need to do is ensure that we is the right balances in place, that we address the concerns that people have and ultimately, as I said, this is a matter of keeping Australians safe.
JAYES: You’re right – these social media companies do have massive clout and they have so much power over smaller businesses that need their services as well. I wonder if there’s a lesson we can learn from what we’re seeing in the UK at the moment. We see these allegations against – levelled at Russell Brand. Now, he hasn’t been de-platformed, but he’s been de-monetised by YouTube. At what point does the legal, the judicial system interact with, you know, unilateral decisions being made by some of these companies? How are you viewing that, Michelle?
ROWLAND: It’s a really pertinent question, and there is actually no one single answer to that. I won’t make any comment specifically on Russell Brand, but what I will point out is that there are a lot of Australians who query why they have been, for example, de-platformed or they have been treated in a different way by the platforms.
Now, Laura, currently we have a voluntary code of practice in place that DIGI, the industry group, has committed its members to. That sets out a number of terms in which their systems and processes will look for specific content. And, again, let me make it clear: it is not the Government that actually does anything in terms of this content; it is these platforms that are deciding what to do with their content, how they moderate it, how they remove it. Every second, every minute, every hour, every day, that is what these platforms are doing – making decisions on their own.
But I do have a number of people who think – and this has been raised by some submitters – there is very little transparency in how those platforms are performing those checks, balances and moderation of their own content. And this goes to precisely what we are aiming to achieve through this bill. It will ‘look under the hood’ of the digital platforms for the first time and seek very definitive transparency reports about how they are adhering to their own policies.
In summary, the platforms already have policies about how they deal with this. But there is no clear oversight and no repercussions for their failure to deal with it. And that’s something that regulators around the world are grappling with at the moment, and that’s what we are seeking to address.
JAYES: Yeah, it’s a really difficult one. Just so we go kind of all the way around the world in this interview – I just want to end by asking you about the COVID Inquiry, because you are an MP that represents a part of Western Sydney that was under lockdown and strict curfew during COVID. Wouldn’t you like to see some of these Premiers – Dominic Perrottet has already offered to submit himself to the inquiry because he wants to learn and thinks we all should learn what Premiers did right and what they did wrong? Wouldn’t you like to see that too?
ROWLAND: Laura, I think you’re right in that ultimately the whole purpose of this inquiry – and it was the reason why the Albanese Government made this commitment – was so that we learn those lessons. And I note that there are very eminent people on this panel. It will be conducted independently. They will be examining the Commonwealth responses, but at the same time, they will also be examining the architecture of the National Cabinet. I think that it will be for that independent panel to determine how best to achieve the scope of this inquiry. And I think this will be important not only for discovering new information but also bringing together the some 20 or so inquiries that already have occurred at State and Territory level.
By doing this, I think we will have a definitive piece which demonstrates what worked well in specific areas and other areas that require improvement. And it does range exactly as you say – everything from vaccine supply, preparedness, readiness in a medical but also in a psychological sense, when it comes to some of the repercussions as well. I’m sure this inquiry will be wide ranging and thorough. These are eminent people who are on this panel that will examine this wide range of issues that I think Australians are entitled to have interrogated.
JAYES: Okay, Michelle, we’ll have to leave it there. Thanks so much for your time, as always. See you soon.
ROWLAND: Pleasure.